Oh never. I argue with my buddies about it all the time. They push their images so far, I told them they're gonna burn my eyes out. Now they overdo it in spite of me LMAO.
My first HDR image is still my favorite, though I don't use the technique very often.
RomanM wrote:Oh never. I argue with my buddies about it all the time. They push their images so far, I told them they're gonna burn my eyes out. Now they overdo it in spite of me LMAO.
My first HDR image is still my favorite, though I don't use the technique very often.
Yes, I've seen your blog and I've seen that photo and I agreed with that topic. And this photo is gorgeous. Better than the one with the ship imo but it could just be my love to black and white photography.
That and HDR brings out the best in metals. The image has an aged elegance to it. The ship one isn't very good, I have some issues with what's going on in the sky. I took a 3 hour photo walk yesterday and took about 283 pictures, so there's more to come. I think I got about 10-15 proper shots.
RomanM wrote:That and HDR brings out the best in metals. The image has an aged elegance to it. The ship one isn't very good, I have some issues with what's going on in the sky. I took a 3 hour photo walk yesterday and took about 283 pictures, so there's more to come. I think I got about 10-15 proper shots.
You're right about the metals. Sometimes I wish there was HDR photography back in the 30s 40s and 50s. Those old cars and a lot of other stuff would've looked damn fine. And yeah, my father always makes like a couple of hundred of pics per day and then only around 10-15 are good as you said. Usually though we disagree on which ones those 10-15 are but yeah.
Well there was HDR photography, it was just a photo chemical process and it wasn't necessarily called HDR. What Ansel Adams used to do with his print is the equivalent, he's really the pioneer of the technique. His prints have some of the best dynamic range out there, he played with photos a lot in the dark room.
It's funny that you're mentioning him because I just remembered that some months ago I was showing some of his remarkable achievements to a friend and saying the same thing. I mean that about being able to do all that BACK THEN. I really don't know much about the chemical processes required to undergo to achieve something like this, I'm not even technically competent on a simple level yet, but I'm sure it's some sophisticated stuff. Sophisticated in a sense of also how simple it can be. Simple as in 'Why haven't anyone else thought of it before'.
prince0gotham wrote:It's funny that you're mentioning him because I just remembered that some months ago I was showing some of his remarkable achievements to a friend and saying the same thing. I mean that about being able to do all that BACK THEN. I really don't know much about the chemical processes required to undergo to achieve something like this, I'm not even technically competent on a simple level yet, but I'm sure it's some sophisticated stuff. Sophisticated in a sense of also how simple it can be. Simple as in 'Why haven't anyone else thought of it before'.
It's just really time consuming. He'd spend an entire day making one print. Dodging and burning, which are techniques that can be duplicated digitally now. I mean the man also invented the zone system for exposure metering. He was ahead of the curve. HIs images floor me. Out there lugging around that large format camera.
